Joe Mitchell and Phil Hendrie: Stretching Fact and Fiction

            Ruth Franklin explores the work of Joe Mitchell, writer for The New Yorker, who was known for his colorful biographies on some of New York’s local characters, in her article, “Joe Mitchell’s Secret,” in The Atlantic. As it turned out, some of these characters were just that –characters, either entirely invented by Mitchell or their stories were elaborately embellished by the author. Franklin’s article is ultimately a review of Thomas Kunkel’s book, Man in Profile: Joseph Mitchell of The New Yorker. Franklin raises the point that Mitchell’s practice would come under extreme scrutiny in today’s climate; fabricating stories or creating characters from scratch –while presenting them as real biographies- could be considered unprofessional at best by current journalism standards.

            This brings to mind Phil Hendrie, a seemingly well mannered talk show host, who could be heard on KFI 640am. Hendrie would interview a guest over the phone each hour and these guests were pretty unusual –their views or the issue being discussed was always inflammatory or at least slightly strange- and many of those tuning in to the show for the first time were struck that something was not quite right. That is because Phil was the interviewer and the interviewee –he rapidly switched back and forth between microphone and telephone. He would bait angry callers as the character and defend them as a talk show host –this went on for years.

            Those of us in the listening audience who understood what was happening were entertained five nights a week by the brilliance of this actor and the twisted situation of the callers –it was as if they were victims of a crank call, but they placed the call themselves.

            Much of the subject matter was outlandish, but it was when Hendrie mixed news stories in with his performance that the angry calls flooded in -that is when the show was most believable and controversial. Phil Hendrie’s show was strictly comedy, but it was presented as serious; it was the listener’s responsibility to realize that, especially those listeners who called in to take a fictitious character to task.

What Joe Mitchell was doing with his writing was not all that different, but it is unclear if his articles were meant to be taken seriously. This raises obvious ethical questions, but like Hendrie, he used his medium and pushed its boundaries. It remains, though, that Hendrie and Mitchell did not send their work out into a vacuum; as an audience, we have a part –it is up to us to question the limits of a medium and examine our expectations, then we can fully appreciate what these artists have been up to.